Telangana High Court
Smt. D. Lakshmi Alias A.L.N. Phani ... vs Mr. D. Vinod Alias Venkata Madhusudana ... on 20 June, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.280 OF 2024
% 20--06--2025# Smt. D.Lakshmi @ A.L.N.Phani Kumari
... Appellant
vs.
$ Mr. D.Vinod @ Venkata Madhusudana Vinod
... Respondent
!Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ramesh Kadari
^Counsel for Respondent: Sri Mohd. Baseer Riyaz
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
1. (1988) 1 SCC 105
2. AIR 2002 SC 2582 : (2002 AIR SCW 2886)
3. (1975) 2 SCC 326
4. (1994) 1 SCC 337
5. (2006) 4 SCC 558
6. (2007) 4 SCC 511
7. (2010) 14 SCC 301
8. (2013) 5 SCC 226
9. 2024 (5) ALD 562 (TS) (DB)
2/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.280 OF 2024
Between:
Smt. D.Lakshmi @ A.L.N.Phani Kumari
... Appellant
And
Mr. D.Vinod @ Venkata Madhusudana Vinod
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 20.06.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
F.C.A.NO.280 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)
1. The Appeal arises out of a common order dated 19.09.2024
passed by the Principle District and Sessions Judge Cum Family
Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda in
F.C.O.P.No.812 of 2014.
2. The appellant is the wife of the respondent/husband. She
filed FCOP.No.1717 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955') for restitution of conjugal
rights. The respondent/husband has filed FCOP.No.812 of 2014
for the grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955.
The Trial Court vide common order dated 19.09.2024 dismissed
the FCOP filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights
(FCOP.No.1717 of 2013) and allowed the FCOP filed by the
respondent/husband for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty
(FCOP.No.812 of 2014).
3. The appellant has not preferred any Appeal against the order
in FCOP.No.1717 of 2013, dated 19.09.2024. The appellant is the
4/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
respondent and the respondent is the petitioner in FCOP.No.812 of
2014. The parties will be herein after referred to as they are
arrayed in the Trial Court.
4.1. It is stated in the petition filed by the husband for grant of
divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955 that his marriage
with his wife is performed on 26.05.2010 at Arya Samaj, Sultan
Bazar, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence
of elders and well-wishers, both the parties are divorcees and it is a
second marriage to both of them. Out of lawful wedlock, they are
blessed with a girl child on 18.12.2011 named as Sree Swaksha
Harshitha.
4.2. Wife has a suspicious nature and used to suspect the
husband that he is having sexual relationship with his mother and
also attributed that the husband has sexual relationship with the
servant maid and also her children, who are aged about 12 and 8
years. From January, 2012, the respondent/wife started avoiding
the petitioner/husband and deprived him from the marital bliss of
conjugal life. The respondent has opened the gas knob and the
entire house was filled with gas, she threatened the petitioner that
she will create a scene that he is trying to kill her by leaking the
gas.
5/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
4.3. The petitioner has filed OP.No.1476 of 2013 against the
respondent/wife for judicial separation. During the pendency of
the same, the respondent/wife has increased her harassment
towards the petitioner and his family members and also lodged a
criminal case at PS Chandanagar vide Crime No.798 of 2013 under
Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner
has withdrawn OP.No.1476 of 2013 on 22.04.2014 and filed O.P.
for divorce. On one occasion, the respondent has set fire the
papers and put them in the room from the gap of the door from the
ground side and she also collected her urine in a bowl, thrown it in
the room and harassed the petitioner to sleep throughout the night
and bear the bad odor.
5. The respondent/wife filed counter and denied the contents of
the petition in toto and she further stated that she filed O.P. for
restitution of conjugal rights vide FCOP.No.1717 of 2013, as a
counter blast to the same, the petitioner/husband has filed
FCOP.No.812 of 2014 for divorce and prayed to dismiss the same.
6. The petitioner/husband is examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P24. The respondent/wife is examined as RW.1
and got marked Exs.R1 to R5.
6/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
7. The Trial Court after going through the evidence lead by the
parties held that husband has proved the specific instances of
cruelty by cogent and convincing evidence and granted divorce.
8. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned
Family Court failed to observe that the fact of harassment is not
mentioned in FCOP.No.1476 of 2013. After filing of the criminal
case by the appellant/wife, husband has filed the O.P. for divorce.
Learned Family Court made an observation that the appellant and
respondent are living together under same roof does not
dis-entitle the husband to seek relief of divorce, solely relied on the
certificate issued by Truth Labs, failed to consider as in what
situation the appellant/wife abused or shouted on her husband.
In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in
(1) Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi 1 (2) Praveen Mehta Vs.
Inderjit Mehta 2.
9. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Trial
Court has considered the oral and documentary evidence filed by
the husband and rightly allowed the O.P. and granted divorce and
needs no interference of the Court. In support of her contentions,
she relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs.
(1988) 1 SCC 105
AIR 2002 SC 2582 : (2002 AIR SCW 2886)
7/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
Mrs. S.Dastane 3, (2) V.Bhagat Vs. Mrs. D.Bhagat 4, (3) Naveen Kohli
Vs. Neelu Kohli 5, (4) Samar ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh 6, (5) Gurbux
Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur 7, (6) K.Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A.Deepa 8,
(7) D.Narasimha @ Narsimlu Vs. D.Anita Vaishnavi 9.
10.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
10.2. Both counsel have filed their written submissions in support
of their contentions.
11. The Point for Consideration is whether the order passed in
FCOP.No.812 of 2024 requires interference of this Court or not?
12. The learned Trial Court has heavily placed reliance on the
evidence of the parties and Exs.P3 to P7 while deciding the lis.
13.1. Ex.P3 is the copy of Short Message Service (SMS), certified
by the Truth Labs dated 02.08.2013 which goes to show that the
appellant has abused the respondent and his mother in filthy
language which cannot be reproduced in the judgment as they are
un-heard of.
(1975) 2 SCC 326
(1994) 1 SCC 337
(2006) 4 SCC 558
(2007) 4 SCC 511
(2010) 14 SCC 301
(2013) 5 SCC 226
2024 (5) ALD 562 (TS) (DB)
8/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
13.2. Ex.P4 is the copy of call recording certified by Truth Labs
dated 19.04.2013 and 07.08.2013 which goes to show that the
appellant has abused the respondent/husband in vulgar language
and uttered that he has sexual relations with his mother. The
words used by the appellant on her husband under Ex.P4
definitely causes mental cruelty to him.
13.3. Ex.P5 is the copy of video recording content certified by
Truth Labs dated 09.04.2013, 13.08.2013, 09.09.2013 and
17.09.2013 which show that the appellant has demanded
Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondent for separation and also
uttered that she will file false dowry harassment case and want to
take revenge (09.04.2013). The appellant has also threatened and
scolded the respondent that she will beat him with chappal
(13.08.2013); also book reverse cases against him (09.09.2013);
file atrocity case against him and his sister (17.09.2013).
13.4. Ex.P6 is the copy of CD containing SMS, call records and
video recording. Ex.P7 is the video and audio CD's of the appellant
which is certified by Truth Labs.
14. Cruelty has not been defined in the Act but has received
Judicial Interpretation. The Law relevant to the issue at hand are
set out below.
9/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
15. Cruelty does not have a fixed definition. What may appear
as ordinary friction in one marriage could be seen as intolerable in
another, depending on the circumstances: Shobha Rani's case1.
16. Mental cruelty cannot be established by direct evidence and
it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts
and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish,
disappointment, and frustration in one spouse caused by the
conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the
attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of
matrimonial life have been living. The facts and circumstances are
to be assessed emerging from the evidence on record and
thereafter, a fair inference has to be drawn whether the petitioner
in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to
the conduct of the other: Praveen Mehta's case2.
17. Condonation and forgiveness means restoration of the
offending spouse to the same position as he/she was before the
offence was committed. The evidence must also point to this
direction: Dr.N.G.Dastane's case3.
18. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955 can
broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other
10/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
party such mental pain and suffering as would make it possible
further party to live with the other. Mental cruelty must be of such
a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live
together. The situation must be such that the wronged party
cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and
continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove
that the mental cruelty is of such as to cause injury to the health
of the petitioner: V.Bhagat's case4.
19. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one which adversely affect
the other. Cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or
unintentional. Cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type
of life the parties are accustomed to or their economy or social
conditions and their culture and human values to which they
attached importance: Naveen Kohli's case5.
20. The concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is
bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern
culture through print and electronic media and value system etc.,
etc., what may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental
cruelty after a passage of time or vice-versa. There can never be a
straight jacket formulae or fixed parameters for determining mental
cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way
11/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts
and circumstances while taking the aforementioned factors into
consideration: Samar ghosh's case6.
21. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. It is quite
possible that a particular conduct may amount to cruelty in one
case but the same conduct necessarily may not amount to cruelty
due to change of various factors, in different set of circumstances.
Therefore, it is essential for the appellant, who claims relief, to
prove that a particular/part of conduct or behaviour resulted in
cruelty to him: Gurbux Singh's case7.
22. Cruelty is evident where one spouse so treats other and
manifests such feelings in other, as to cause reasonable
apprehension in mind of other that it would be harmful or
injurious to reside with other spouse; K.Srinivas Rao's case8.
23. It is the evidence of the husband that the appellant has
attributed sexual relationship with the maid servant and her
children who are aged about 12 and 8 years, sexual relationship
with his mother, sexual relationship with his 3 months old
daughter. He further deposed that his wife has opened gas during
mid-night and created a scene in the house, abused him in filthy
language and threatened him to make impotent by hitting on his
12/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
private parts. The worst thing is that the appellant has collected
her urine in a bowl and has thrown the same from underneath the
door and shouted that her husband shall sleep throughout the
night and bear the bad odor.
24. Though the respondent/husband was cross-examined by the
appellant counsel, except putting suggestions no material is
elicited from his cross-examination.
25. The appellant in her cross-examination has denied the
suggestion that she harassed her husband that he is having sexual
activities with other ladies and also opened the knob of the gas
cylinder and tried to kill them.
26. Mental Cruelty cannot be defined within a Straightjacket
formula. What may be seen as mental cruelty by one party may be
will perceived as behavior which is irritating or unwelcome, but not
cruel. The fact that two persons cannot imagine a life together any
more should be seen as sufficient ground to dissolve the marriage
and grant a Decree of Divorce: In D.Narasimha's case7.
27. The documentary evidence (Exs.P3 to P7) goes to the root of
the matter and proves that it is the appellant/wife, who harassed
the petitioner which caused cruelty to the husband which falls
13/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955. Due to
the acts of the appellant, the respondent/husband thought it fit
that it is highly unsafe and injurious to live with his wife.
28. The documents filed by the appellant/wife are not much
helpful to support her contentions. The words used by the
appellant in Exs.P3, P4 and P5 are unheard of, which also
demonstrates her cruel attitude towards her husband and that of
her mental status. The evidence of the respondent/husband
coupled with the documents proves that he underwent harassment
in the hands of his wife and it is unsafe to live with her.
29. The Trial Court has examined the evidence adduced by the
parties and also taken into consideration the documents filed
thereon and passed a reasoned order.
30. The appellant has not made out any case to set aside the
order passed by the Trial Court in FCOP.No.812 of 2014, dated
19.09.2024. We hold that the Trial Court has gone into the matter
in detail and rightly granted divorce to the respondent/husband.
There are no merits in the Appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
14/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
31. FCA.No.280 of 2024 is accordingly, dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Interim order granted in IA.No.2 of 2024, dated 30.12.2024
stands vacated, all connected applications are disposed of.
___________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
20th June, 2025
PLV
15/12 MB,J & BRMR,J
FCA_280_2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
F.C.A.NO.280 OF 2024
20.06.2025
PLV
